Tibetan and Himalayan Library - THL

The Present

If the past of Drepung’Bras spungs is one of enormous political and economic power,
splendid liturgical and artistic achievements, great intellectual and religious
practices, its present is quite different. With the tragic events that have marred
the history of Tibet in the second half of the
twentieth century, life at Drepung’Bras spungs has changed quite dramatically. This
became particularly true in the aftermath of the failure of the revolt of 1959 when
the LhasaLha sa
population rose against the authorities. Many joined the Fourteenth Dalai Lama (Talé Lama Kutreng Chupzhipatā la’i bla ma sku
phreng bcu bzhi pa) in exile in India
while those who stayed in Tibet underwent great
hardships, being engulfed in the vagaries of the post-1959 repression, the economic
devastation of the Great Leap Forward, the famine
that ensued, and the chaos and destructions of the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

Many of the Drepung’Bras spungs monks who remained in Tibet from 1959 onwards had taken part in the failed uprising, and even
those who had not were suspect due to the monastery’s overall involvement. The
monastery was seen as rebellious and thus became a target for authorities bent on
eliminating resistance to the implementation of socialist policies. Overnight the
estate system overall, including that supporting major monasteries such as Drepung’Bras spungs, was abolished and all the outstanding loans (perhaps as much as $5
million) were cancelled. A group of party officials formed a government “work team”
which descended on the monastery. Many monks belonging to the intellectual, religious
or administrative elite were denounced as counter-revolutionaries and sent to labor
camps from where few came back. The others, particularly the younger ones who were
lucky enough to have remained anonymous, gradually left or were sent home where they
were integrated into local work units. Thus, by 1966 Drepung’Bras spungs had ceased
to exist as a monastic institution in Tibet, the
buildings transformed into schools, hospitals or storage-rooms. The few who remained
ceased to function as monks and were subjected to harsh treatments, such as being
made to perform exhausting manual labor. Moreover, they were not allowed to wear
robes or to engage in any religious activity and were required to participate in
endless ideological reeducation campaigns during which religion was denounced. Some
dealt with this terrible situation with great courage, using their position to save
what could be saved. They buried statues, packed away texts, and they preserved
temples by transforming them into storerooms, thus putting them beyond the reach of
the vandalism of Red Guards. Hence, most of the
important buildings at Drepung’Bras spungs were preserved, contrary to most
monasteries in Tibet. Still, many buildings fell
apart, either through intentional destruction or neglect.

Gen LamrimpaRgan lam rim pa in the Chapel of the Buddhas of the Three Times/Great Assemby
Hall

The greatest example of the attempt to preserve the monastic heritage at Drepung’Bras spungs during these difficult years is that of Gen LamrimpaRgan lam rim pa, a modern saint
whose personality dominates contemporary Drepung’Bras spungs. Gen LamrimpaRgan lam rim pa
was an ordinary monk from south-eastern Tibet who had
been engaged in studies for a number of years when the events of 1959 overtook his
life. Throughout the difficult events of the next two decades, Gen LamrimpaRgan lam rim pa
managed to stay at ’Bras spungs within
Tibet. When he was told that he would have to chose
between working for his keep and not eating, Gen LamrimpaRgan lam rim pa embraced the latter
alternative. He entered into a prolonged retreat in which he is said to have
sustained himself with blessed pills. During this time, he also collected as many
texts and statues as he could. Remaining in complete isolation and probably
benefiting from the protection of local administrators, he remained at Drepung’Bras spungs throughout the dark years and emerged in the 1980s as a source of
learning and inspiration. He became recognized as one of the great monks of his
generation, a scholar as well as a saint whose courage and resolution embody the
determination of the Tibetan people to
preserve its culture and traditions. Despite the veneration that surrounded him,
Gen LamrimpaRgan lam rim pa continued to live as a simple monk, devoting his time to teaching monks
and collecting as many texts as possible. After his passing away, his library and few
personal belongings were moved to the Ganden Palace where they have remained exposed since
then.

Things started to improve after the end the Cultural
Revolution. By 1980, the few monks who had remained were allowed to engage
in limited religious activities while still doing full time manual labor. The
monastery was also allowed to restart gradually its traditional activities, holding
its first collective ritual in 1982 and reinstating the scholastic curriculum that
had made its past glory. Some of the monks who had been at Drepung’Bras spungs before
1959 and had preserved their monastic vows were allowed to come back. The monastery
was also allowed to admit new recruits, but only under tight supervision of the
authorities. Whereas previously, the admission to the monastery was in the hands of
the monastic authorities and hence quite liberal, the new policies are very
restrictive. Only young men over eighteen years can be admitted. More importantly,
the monastery is allowed to admit only a limited number of applicants. An absolute
limit of seven hudnred monks was set for the whole of Drepung’Bras spungs, a
monastery that housed more than ten-thousand before 1959. Moreover, this limit did
not mean that the monastery could automatically fill its quota, for it had to receive
special authorization for each batch of new admissions. By the summer of 2005,
Drepung’Bras spungs had around 640 monks officially enrolled, with several hundred
young men waiting for their turn.

This limitation has been one of the main sources of friction with the authorities. It
has prevented thousands of young men from fulfilling their religious vocation,
leading many to seek in India what they could not find
in their homeland. It has also had difficult consequences for the monastery, which
has struggled to maintain its traditional religious activities with such a monastic
body much reduced in size. Monks have worked very hard at reviving their institution
and in many ways have been quite successful. But there are simply not enough people
to do all that needs to be done: keep up the place, perform the religious rituals
required by the monastic calendar or by the laity, work for the monastery and engage
in studies! Even the maintenance of the old buildings, which were built to house more
than ten-thousand monks and require constant care, has proved too much for a
community of fewer than seven hundred people stretched thin over too many tasks.
Hence, buildings often look poorly kept and the monastery has at times the appearance
of a ghost town.

The structure of the administration of the monastery has also been radically changed.
As we saw, Drepung’Bras spungs, like any other monastery in Tibet, was an autonomous, self-governing corporate body ruled by a
council chosen by the various entities composing the monastery. Since reopening, the
monastery has been directed by a Democratic Management Committee (DMC, Mangtso Daknyer Uyön Lhenkhangdmangs gtso bdag nyer u yon lhan khang), which has
consistently functioned as a channel for implementing the decisions taken by the
government and the party. The composition of the DMC reflects this function. At first composed exclusively of
monks working under the supervision of party cadres, the presence of officials from
the Bureau of Religious Affairs within the DMC has been officialized since the mid 1990s. The present DMC at Drepung’Bras spungs is made up
of seventeen members: eleven monks and six cadres. The day to day running of the
place is in the hands of the four monastic managers, who are in charge of
coordinating the various tasks performed by the monks working for the monastery. But
their decisions have to be approved by the DMC, where the cadres hold effective power. Hence, this body is less the
expression of the monastic population, as the old council was, than a channel for
implementing the policies of the government and the party.

This has led to a tense situation in which the leaders of the monastery are placed in
a delicate situation, being caught between the decisions of the authorities and the
wishes of the monastic body. This tension concerns particularly the young monks, who
are frustrated by the restrictions imposed by the authorities, particularly those
imposed on the admission process. This difficult situation has also led many young
monks to become involved in nationalist politics with problematic consequences. Young
monks from Drepung’Bras spungs were at the heart of the riots of
1987-8 when they demonstrated around LhasaLha sa against the
authorities. This political involvement has in turn exacerbated the situation,
creating renewed difficulties for the monastery and its leaders. Many of the more
active young monks were expelled, particularly those politically committed, thus
removing from the monastery a group of highly dedicated young talents. More
importantly, the participation of young Drepung’Bras spungs monks has revived the
suspicion of the authorities, which see the monastery as fundamentally rebellious.
This has strengthened the hands of those who are not supportive to the limited
cultural and religious renewal that has been allowed since 1980 and would rather
impose tougher restrictions on the activities of the monastery. In 2005, they were
able to push for a new wave of patriotic reeducation campaign. Work teams have been
reconstituted to visit monasteries around LhasaLha sa, reminiscent of the old days of the Maoist
era. This has made the already difficult task of monastic leaders even more
problematic. They are more than ever caught between the authorities and the young
monks, who keep resenting a situation that is showing too little improvement.

In addition, in 1959 many Drepung’Bras spungs monks left for exile in India, where they struggled to reconstitute their institution
in very difficult circumstances. Some monks were judged not to show sufficient
scholarly promise and were shipped to the Himalayan foothills where they worked on various strategic road projects in very
harsh conditions. The lucky ones were allowed to stay in Buxadur (Assam) where they had the
opportunity to continue their studies and start to rebuild their institution. Many
had, however, great difficulties in adapting to the Indian climate and died of tuberculosis, hepatitis or other diseases.
Later on, the monks staying in Buxadur were moved to
Mundgod in the Karnataka state of South India where they
were given land. There, they had to start from scratch, building houses and bringing
the land into cultivation. By the mid 1970s, they were on their way to rebuilding
their institutions, a project that has continued to this day.

This rebuilding has been largely successful, though difficult. The material
conditions are tough, the land poor and the harvest often threatened by wild life.
Moreover, the increase of the monastic population has meant new hardships. At first
intended for a limited monastic population of three hundred, the land has long become
insufficient to support Drepung’Bras spungs-in-exile. By the beginning of the
1980s, the population had reached a thousand, already vastly outgrowing the resources
provided by the land. The end of the 1980s marks the start of a new period of massive
influx of monks from Eastern Tibet. Prevented from
entering Drepung’Bras spungs in Tibet, these monks found
no other solution than to join Drepung’Bras spungs-in-exile. Consequently, the
population of Drepung’Bras spungs in Mundgod has
exploded, reaching around three thousand at the turn of the century. Taking care of
such a large population has been quite challenging, and only the tapping of new
networks of international donors has allowed the monastery to survive.

The recreation of the intellectual tradition has also been difficult. Although many
monks escaped to India, their number was small
compared to those of Drepung’Bras spungs prior to 1959. Hence, the monastery has found it
difficult at times to sustain the intensity of its intellectual life, though on the
whole it has been quite successful. Classes have been reconstituted, texts reprinted,
examinations reinstituted and teachers mobilized to ensure that the monastery’s
learning would be preserved. Although Drepung’Bras spungs-in-exile never managed to
match the learning that existed in Tibet prior to
1959, it has succeeded in producing competent scholars who are able to preserve their
tradition.

In exile, Drepung’Bras spungs has kept some of its traditional organization. LosellingBlo gsal gling and GomangSgo mang are again large and thriving colleges but DeyangBde yangs and NgakpaSngags pa, being too small, have not been reestablished. The
monastery has also tried to maintain as much of its administrative and disciplinary
structure, though it is obviously deprived of the wealth and power it had in the old
society. Being a steward or even an abbot is now more a chore than a desirable position, as it was in the old
days when ambitious monks thought of these jobs as ways to advance in life.
Similarly, being a disciplinarian does not give access to the wealth of LhasaLha sa as it was the
case in the old days. Finally, the regional houses have lost some of their meaningfulness. Many of them are
too small to support all the range of activities they had in Tibet. Finally, affiliated houses have disappeared, their monks being absorbed into a more
rationalized organization. Nevertheless, the structures of Drepung’Bras spungs-in-exile
is still quite similar to the one described here, with a general council ruling over
Drepung’Bras spungs, monastic colleges in charge of scholastic activities and regional houses in charge of
housing and socializing their monks.